The only thing more useless than DxOMark's Sensor Overall Score is their Lens Score.

I do find it interesting that they rank the Canon 70-200 II so highly. When they first tested it, they said it was not quite as good as the MkI version of that lens. No one else agreed with their assessment, but they stuck to their results. But looking at it now, on the 5DII they have the MkII scoring a 24, and the MkI scoring a 21 - so now the MkII is better. They didn't bother to correct their text review, though, where they conclude: "...these 2 lenses are both excellent telephoto lenses, but the overall scores come out slightly in favor of the previous version of the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM, especially for Travel and Sport photography, which are the main use cases of these telephoto zoom lenses." Scroll down to the comments on the linked page to see their denial that there's anything wrong with their results - results they now seem to have quietly changed to reach the opposite conclusion.

Hobby Shooter

I was trying to make some fun of this. Before I got the 70-200 MkII I did check reviews although I was certain that I was going to get it anyway, I can't remember any of them not praising the MkII overall and in comparison to the MkI. I'm not surprised the 24-105 ends up a little further back, but I still like it and currently can't justify buying the 24-70 MkII. My 35L gets very little love, but I'm very very happy with it. It makes me happy even looking at it, not to mention using it. I've borrowed a 50 1.4 for a portrait shoot I will do next week. It's very nice as a lens but feels really cheap compared to my other lenses. Might get one though anyway.

Lists like this are fun anyway I think. It's like sports results and standings, you always root for your own team and always find the statistics that makes your team/brand look better